I suspect your on commission or something. Didn't you say you instruct people how to kill their fellow citizens, I would say that classifies as a vested interest. ;-)..

"How to kill their fellow citizens..." Wow, you sound just like the clowns at IANSA.

Actually, I instruct law-abiding people on how to defend themselves when their fellow citizens try to harm or kill them. My "vested interest" is primarily in having the ability to defend myself and my family at work and at home. If I can transfer some of that knowledge to other "good guys," so be it. I do it gladly, and often free of charge because I BELIEVE in it. No one should be defenseless because of their government in the face of criminal attack, should they so choose.

At least here in the States we have the option. You nice folks in the UK have let your government take away your ability to resist the criminal element effectively.
Maybe it's a cultural difference... here it can take 10-20 minutes for police response. By that time they can collect bodies and do paperwork.

Crime resolution increased dramatically in the UK after the installation of tons of surveillance cameras. What about any impact of the crime rate? What is the current situation with cams in the US? Modern cams are cheap and can be wireless, allowing for cheap installation and upkeep.

Seems like something was lost in translation on that whole "opposing violence for political ends" thing...

Quote:

Zachary Moyle, executive director of the state GOP, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Kramer invited him to look at something in the trunk of his Mercedes before pulling out a rifle, pointing it at his face and warning that he would be back if President Bush vetoed an emergency war spending bill being considered by Congress.

"A man accused of threatening a Nevada Republican Party official with a rifle was arrested Tuesday in a vehicle in which police found swords, knives, a shotgun, shells and a flare gun, authorities said."

Wacko

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

If these creeps didn't have guns, then the troopers wouldn't get shot.

True. They need to be punished very severely, and in a way that does not punish those that did not do it.
I wonder if these "creeps" were already violating gun laws? Obviously, they have no respect for "laws" anyway.
In Texas, that is attempted capital murder.

"Two police officers pleaded guilty Thursday to manslaughter in the shooting death of a 92-year-old woman during a botched drug raid last fall. A third officer still faces charges.

Officer J.R. Smith told a state judge Thursday that he regretted what had happened.

'I'm sorry,' the 35-year-old said, his voice barely audible. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation, making false statements and perjury, which was based on claims in a warrant.

Former Officer Gregg Junnier, 40, who retired from the Atlanta police in January, pleaded guilty to manslaughter, violation of oath, criminal solicitation and making false statements. Both men are expected to face more than 10 years in prison.

In a hearing later in federal court, both pleaded guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to violate a person's civil rights, resulting in death. Their state and federal sentences would run concurrently.

The charges followed a Nov. 21 'no-knock' drug raid on the home of Kathryn Johnston, 92. An informant had described buying drugs from a dealer there, police said. When the officers burst in without warning, Johnston fired at them, and they fired back, killing her."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

translation:

"Because we don't want to have a large, standing army (because having one here in 1775 made the revolution really difficult), we want people to be in smaller militias. Because of this, people are free to KEEP arms in their homes. They are also free to BEAR (commonly misread as "carry," but it really means "endure") the keeping of those arms in their homes. And you don't get to shoot them, because we didn't say anything about that."

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

translation:

"Because we don't want to have a large, standing army (because having one here in 1775 made the revolution really difficult), we want people to be in smaller militias. Because of this, people are free to KEEP arms in their homes. They are also free to BEAR (commonly misread as "carry," but it really means "endure") the keeping of those arms in their homes. And you don't get to shoot them, because we didn't say anything about that."

No. A militia is made up of people, so you need people to be able to "keep" guns so that when they get together to go militia-ing, they have all the right props. But random groups of people do not constitute a militia. Maybe this is why so many people misread the 2nd amendment? Do they think that when they get into a group for beer on a Friday they constitute a militia?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

To hold up; support.To carry from one place to another; transport.
To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.To have as a quality; exhibit: A thousand different shapes it bears (Abraham Cowley).
To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.

No. A militia is made up of people, so you need people to be able to "keep" guns so that when they get together to go militia-ing, they have all the right props. But random groups of people do not constitute a militia. Maybe this is why so many people misread the 2nd amendment? Do they think that when they get into a group for beer on a Friday they constitute a militia?

To hold up; support.To carry from one place to another; transport.
To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.To have as a quality; exhibit: A thousand different shapes it bears (Abraham Cowley).
To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.

Hrm. Some of those are very interesting. Maybe we're supposed to "endure" them? Or give birth to them? The right of the people to keep and invent arms shall not be infringed? The right of the people to keep and RENDER arms?

Why are you so selective in your interpretations, Jube?

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

You seem to think that such a notion is silly. Misreading the constitution! LUDICROUS! I mean, women have had the right to vote forever! And slavery! Isolated! Totally isolated!

You're free to believe whatever deluded interpretation of the 2nd A that you want... just like the left "invents" new interpretations of the Constitution that serves their whacked-out ends. Abortion from 4th Amendment? Government into everything from the Commerce Clause?

Beyond all your thoughts on how we've been "reading wrong" for 200+ years, the reality is that you are going to have a hell of a time ever getting guns out of America. And if you do, a lot of law-abiding people are going to die to achieve your goal. That's the way it is. Sorry.

Hrm. Some of those are very interesting. Maybe we're supposed to "endure" them? Or give birth to them? The right of the people to keep and invent arms shall not be infringed? The right of the people to keep and RENDER arms?

You're free to believe whatever deluded interpretation of the 2nd A that you want... just like the left "invents" new interpretations of the Constitution that serves their whacked-out ends. Abortion from 4th Amendment? Government into everything from the Commerce Clause?

The left? I thought it was Griswold v Connecticut, which ensures a right to privacy.

Quote:

Beyond all your thoughts on how we've been "reading wrong" for 200+ years, the reality is that you are going to have a hell of a time ever getting guns out of America. And if you do, a lot of law-abiding people are going to die to achieve your goal. That's the way it is. Sorry.

Indeed. The terrorists and their appeasers will, initially, put up a fight. But we will not be deterred.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

the reality is that you are going to have a hell of a time ever getting guns out of America. And if you do, a lot of law-abiding people are going to die to achieve your goal. That's the way it is. Sorry.

You're suggesting that people will take up arms against a government that tries to take their guns away. I call those people terrorists.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

You're suggesting that people will take up arms against a government that tries to take their guns away. I call those people terrorists.

I did no such thing. You are playing some Red-Dawn version of gun owners again. There are 300+ million guns in the country. No law or even house-to-house searches are going to get all of them, especially from criminals. In the mean time, Joe Law Abiding is going to be an easy target for these criminals. There is no real way to get guns out of this country without mass uprising from law abiding people and a crime wave from newly-empowered criminals.

Taking your misinterpretation as a mulligan... Those "terrorists" are people who believe in the Consitution of 1789, which we have already established should be re-written because it does not say what it really means.

I did no such thing. You are playing some Red-Dawn version of gun owners again. There are 300+ million guns in the country. No law or even house-to-house searches are going to get all of them, especially from criminals. In the mean time, Joe Law Abiding is going to be an easy target for these criminals. There is no real way to get guns out of this country without mass uprising from law abiding people and a crime wave from newly-empowered criminals.

I hear that a lot. As if Joe Law-Abiding isn't already an easy target for them. As if there's some polling data out there about how many criminals are deterred by the possibility of gun ownership.

Quote:

Taking your misinterpretation as a mulligan... Those "terrorists" are people who believe in the Consitution of 1789, which we have already established should be re-written because it does not say what it really means.

Indeed. I feel kind of sad for those people who believe in the Constitution of 1789. Because—runs and checks calendar...yup. Thought so—IT'S NOT 1789. Any other things from 1789 you believe in? The absence of a professional, regulated police force? Slavery? Public hangings?

And frankly, you know, Jefferson thought that every generation ought to stage a revolution and forge a new social contract, since the various needs of each successive generation change over time. Not my fault so many people were cowards and fell down on the job. Probably too busy deifying the constitution of 1789 or something. Maybe playing games on the Wii.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

I hear that a lot. As if Joe Law-Abiding isn't already an easy target for them. As if there's some polling data out there about how many criminals are deterred by the possibility of gun ownership.

Great. Let's make average people EASIER targets. And... polling data? What are you going to ask...
"Mr. Would Be Murderer Rapist Robber Guy, thanks for your time. Now that you've admitted that you want to victimize other citizens, please tell me if a gun would make a difference in the hands of your prey." Maybe we can find a criminal opinion here...

Quote:

Indeed. I feel kind of sad for those people who believe in the Constitution of 1789. Because—runs and checks calendar...yup. Thought so—IT'S NOT 1789. Any other things from 1789 you believe in? The absence of a professional, regulated police force? Slavery? Public hangings?

Strawman. You crack me up. Support for the "real" 2nd A now means support of slavery and public hangings. Nice leap.

Great. Let's make average people EASIER targets. And... polling data? What are you going to ask...
"Mr. Would Be Murderer Rapist Robber Guy, thanks for your time. Now that you've admitted that you want to victimize other citizens, please tell me if a gun would make a difference in the hands of your prey."

Sure. I mean, if people are going to talk about the deterrent effects of guns, I'd like to know they're not just making it up. I mean, does a meth-head considering breaking into my house worry that I have a .38 in my closet? Does a meth-head downtown considering mugging me worry that I have a 9mm? Enquiring minds want to know!

Quote:

Strawman. You crack me up. Support for the "real" 2nd A now means support of slavery and public hangings. Nice leap.

Waitaminute. So you say you believe in the constitution of 1789 and me saying a) it's not 1789 anymore and b) asking if there's anything else from 1789 you believe in is all of a sudden a strawman?

Ugh.

I'm so confused. Either you want the 1789 constitution or not. You don't get to pick and choose which bits of it you want to keep. It's not like it's Leviticus or anything! Now THERE'S an old document you can pick and choose from!

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Sure. I mean, if people are going to talk about the deterrent effects of guns, I'd like to know they're not just making it up. I mean, does a meth-head considering breaking into my house worry that I have a .38 in my closet? Does a meth-head downtown considering mugging me worry that I have a 9mm? Enquiring minds want to know!

I want the 1789 Constitution as Amended. Simple enough? That gets it all in there, the RKBA, prohibitions on slavery, addition of suffrage, all those nice things.

To answer your criminal question, please print and place on your car and front door:

One more time... the BILL OF RIGHTS are not government-given rights. They are inherent.
They are not "open to repeal."

Why not wear that sign proudly if you feel so safe without a gun?
Why not advertise? If MY gun is not keeping you safer...?
Be anti-gun, anti-carry, and post it for the world to see. Be PROUD of not having a means of defense!